There is a belief in OSS communities, that if a project is open-source, then someone will pick it up after it's abandoned by the original author/leader and that development will continue as if nothing happened. Just like for every project that has been handed to Apache Foundation or Kod for that matter.

I don't believe it to be true, and I accept that if Jon decides to abandon Sublime Text then the editor is dead. That's it. Open source or not. Without a strong lead and designed by a committee ST2 would be nothing like it's now. **W/o Jon ST's source code has little value!! **

Once I accepted that, the difference between open and closed source development of core editor became meaningless (to me). There are people who will not touch a closed source software with a stick, and that's OK, I understand that.

There are plenty of open source text editors out there, use one of them if that is a requirement for you. Nothing stops you to turn one of those other editors into exactly what you want, you have the full source code access to them and can do anything you want.

But you likely won't, and that's where I agree with wuub. Without Jon ST's source code has little value. Besides most of what I want to configure in the editor I can do with the existing plugin/settings/theme/etc API without needing the actual source code, so I'm happy.

Having access to the source is important. It's important to me. That doesn't mean it needs to be open source.

Is (or could) the source be available to registered users? Could the license for the source include a clause that opens up the source at a later date or under certain conditions? Would that encourage people to pay for registration? Will it allow for ST2 to be used where security is critical (the source may be audited with only compiled in-house versions used). Would that help with bug/patch submissions? Well yes, to all of those.

Such a model has been proven to work too. Several for-profit, closed source, whatever-lable-you-put-on-them companies do offer such licenses along with their source code.

This seems like a low risk option too. Consider how many open source editors there are out there. Consider the statements about whether Jon is the critical element or whether the source code is.

Is there a reasonable fear/concern that prevents the source from being available to users?

@castles Since you quoted me, I'm not sure if you're post is directed towards me or not. I wasn't arguing against open source, just that you shouldn't be forced to open source something. It'd be like playing poker and someone telling you to show them your hand.

The files you're referring to have nothing to do with application code. TextMate bundles are (primarily) created & maintained by the community, and are also used in other editors such as E (e-texteditor.com/). As COD13 mentioned, ST2 is just able to use some elements of TM bundles to extend functionality.

@castles Since you quoted me, I'm not sure if you're post is directed towards me or not. I wasn't arguing against open source, just that you shouldn't be forced to open source something. It'd be like playing poker and someone telling you to show them your hand.

I'd see it more like building a cool house in the middle of a forest someone else cleared out. The guys pulled up all the roots and left a big pile of wood to build with. Hell, they even left their hammer, nails and saw before they went off wherever they went. They come back and you charge em $59 for the pleasure of staying in your abode. Because of all the varnish your rubbed over everything they don't recognize their wood you used. They just pay up. Of course, once the new extension is built on the 3rd floor, they got to pay again if they want to hang out up there.

You can get away with it cause your house is cool and that's just the way things are.

Of course, the wood/tools you used weren't actually taken from the communal mob in the sense of them losing something but there was definitely effort involved there in creation/refinement. And when something is just as easy/costless to give back as mass reproduceable software why wouldn't you? There's a zillion plus one rooms in your house.

So it'd be like a cynic silently smirking as his naive friends showed their hands in poker all the while jealously guarding his own hand.

Without giving anything back it's just exploiting the idealism and hard work of others. But then the world is full of exploitation huh? Nothing new to see here folks.

I'd see it more like building a cool house in the middle of a forest someone else cleared out. The guys pulled up all the roots and left a big pile of wood to build with. Hell, they even left their hammer, nails and saw before they went off wherever they went.

It would be fairer to say that everyone was given a big pile of wood and a hammer. Jon just had the brains to build the house. We all have the tools, so what's stopping you from building you're own house in the forest? Nothing. So why be upset that Jon wants to charge people for staying in his house? And it's not like he's forced to share his house. What if Jon build Sublime Text and didn't even sell it? He just had it sitting on his computer and his alone. Would you be mad? He's not taking anything away or adding anything, but he used the tools he was given.

As for the original concerns from the post, Yes. There are limitations to having Sublime Text as closed source. But so be it.

I don't think there is a metaphor that could be considered even remotely analogous to open source software.

It is what it is: a very complicated ecosystem of dependencies and contributions, with each developer having a myriad of diverse intentions.Sure, it's true that most intents to creating anything are predominantly based on self-interest. And I think there is the commonality of both open and closed source projects.

You can be sure open source projects actually benefit a bit every time someone builds upon them - whether it's an open or closed source project. But, the fact that Sublime Text uses some open source code is not in itself a good enough reason to expect Jon to open source Sublime Text.

My only concern is Sublime Text not being actively developed or supported either through misfortune or a buyout.For that reason alone I'd like to see Jon incorporate or organize to a point where Sublime's future is a bit more secure.Which isn't to say I wouldn't like to see it open sourced, because I would - just to be clear.